(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard. Title page indicates "Standards Track".
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of
the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in
the abstract or introduction.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted?
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Technical Summary
The document defines RTSP version 2.0 which obsoletes RTSP version 1.0 defined
in RFC 2326.
The Real Time Streaming Protocol, or RTSP, is an application-level protocol for
setup and control of the delivery of data with real-time properties. RTSP
provides an extensible framework to enable controlled, on-demand delivery of
real-time data, such as audio and video. Sources of data can include both live
data feeds and stored clips. This protocol is intended to control multiple
data delivery sessions, provide a means for choosing delivery channels such as
UDP, multicast UDP and TCP, and provide a means for choosing delivery
mechanisms based upon RTP (RFC 3550).
Working Group Summary
The document has been work in progress for an extended period of time dating
back to 2002. Earlier versions saw decent WG participation however the later
versions have primarily been driven by the document authors with limited
overall discussion in the group, especially towards the end of the process.
There are no known issues or major discussion points, and there has been no
indication of lack of consensus in the WG.
Document Quality
The document has been reviewed in detail several times after WGLC and in
preparation for the publication request and the authors have made several
updates as a result of those. The document is considered to be of high quality
at this point.
There is one known implementation of the specification, and many of the
extensions compared to RTSP 1.0 have been implemented separately as well.
A Media type review was done for "text/parameters". The review thread can be
found at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01656.html
Personnel
Document Shepherd: Flemming Andreasen
Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I have performed detailed end-to-end review of the document twice. The first
review resulted in a number of clarifying updates, and the second review
revealed only minor issues, which have subsequently been addressed by the
authors.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
Earlier versions of the document received some amount of WG attention, however
the document has seen little recent active review and participation in the WG
outside of the authors and the document shepherd. Detailed reviews have been
performed by the authors and the document shepherd several times and the
document is of high quality at this point. As noted, due to the relatively
limited number of people having reviewed the latest version(s), the reviews
have not been as broad as we would like.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No such additional review is believed to be needed (nor has one been performed).
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
There are no specific concerns or issued with the document at this point.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
Each author has confirmed full conformance.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
An IPR disclosure has been made on an earlier version of the document:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1189/
and an updated IPR disclosure reflecting subsequent changes in document section
numbers has been made as well:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2028/
The IPR was originally disclosed at IETF 76:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/76/minutes/mmusic.html
and also posted to the MMUSIC list subsequently:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg07815.html
There has been no further comments or discussion around the IPR.
Also note that an IPR disclosure was made (in 1997 ?) on an earlier version of
RTSP: http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/IPR/RTSP
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The document mostly represents the work of the authors and WG consensus is
primarily based on that as well. There are no known concerns from anybody.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No threat of appeal or other indication of discontent
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
The document has been reviewed and had ID-nits run on it by two of the authors
and the shepherd. The draft previously resulted in a lot of unused references
in ID-nits, which appeared to be a shortcoming of ID-nits as it didn't parse
the whole draft for reference, only up to the reference section. Thus all
references that are only in the appendixes were marked as unused. The authors
have manually checked this on the -33 version and found them to be false
alarms. Henrik was going to address the issue and it appears to have been fixed
as of the latest ID-nits check run. ID-nits has a couple of false FQDN
warnings as well.
The document has a normative reference to RFC 2818, which itself (somewhat
suprisingly) is an Informative RFC and hence causes a downref issue. However,
RFC 2818 is in the downref registry and hence should not be a problem:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
As mentioned above, the media type review (for "text/parameters") can be found
at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01656.html
The URI review during WG last call is here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg01567.html
The URI review discussion resulted in the addition of explicit calling out the
changes to the scheme which could potentially result in issues.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No such references.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.
There is a downward reference to RFC 2818 as noted above.
RFC 2818 is already listed in the downref registry:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
This document obsoletes RFC 2326 (RTSP 1.0). This is shown on the title page
and both listed and discussed in the abstract and introduction.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).
The document defines a number of new IANA registries and registers values in
these as well as a couple of existing ones. All the IANA registries and
registrations appear complete and correct.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
The document defines a number of new registries of which the following require
RFC 5226 Expert Review (or Specification Required with implied Designated
Expert review) as noted in the IANA considerations section of the document:
- RTSP Headers (Section 22.4)
- Media Properties (Section 22.7)
- Notify-Reasons header (Section 22.8)
- Range header formats (Section 22.9)
- Terminate Reason: Redirect Reasons (Section 22.10.1)
- Terminate Reason: Terminate-Reasone header Parameters (Section 22.10.2)
- RTP-Info header parameters (Section 22.11)
- Seek-Style Policies (Section 22.12)
- Transport Header: Transport Protocol Specification (22.13.1)
- Transport Header: Transport Parameters (22.13.3)
The document authors are the expert reviewers with Magnus Westerlund as the
primary Designated Expert reviewer.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
All ABNF has been validated by Bill Fenner's ABNF parser.